[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: Advocating periodic releases

Roman Shaposhnick rvs
Fri Oct 13 04:51:05 CEST 2006


On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 11:47 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> state diagram copy & pasted from an old bugzilla flame ...
> ----------
> Bugs:
>    /<--------------------------\
> New -> Verified -> Analyzed -> Fixed (-> Fixed&Checked)
> ^\\\-> WorksForMe  | |     \-> WontFix
> | \--> Duplicate <-/ |
> v  --> Invalid <-----/
> NeedMoreInfo

  This seems quite reasonable. 

> Patches:
>    /<-(reverse)-\
> New -> Ok -> Applied (->Applied&Checked)
> ^  \-> Rejected
> |
> v
> NeedsChanges

  I'm sorry, but how do patches tie in into bugtracking ? 
Or is it completely separate transition diagram, which
essentially illustrates what you do on a ML when you
see a patch ? ;-)

> > Do we have an initial evaluators for all of the
> > bugs, etc.
> you mean someone who just looks at bugs but doesnt try to fix them?

  Kind of. Somebody who puts them into
invalid/duplicate/needsMoreInfo/worksForMe/Verified state and also
knows every maintainer so that each individual developer doesn't
have to hunt for bugs in the area he maintains. 

>  well
> depends its very possible that someone will go over newBugs and change
> them to invalid/duplicate/needsMoreInfo/worksForMe/Verified
> its also possible that someone looks at a new bug and changes it to
> fixed at once after fixing the bug ...

 The later one is, of course, possible. But if we have somebody
enthusiastic enough to at least move all the incoming bugs into
invalid/duplicate/needsMoreInfo/worksForMe/Verified and also
hand them off to the right people for further evaluation 
(i.e. so that I can be sure that all of the bug notifications
I receive have something to do with areas I maintain) that'll
be very much appreciated.

  Any volunteers ? 

> or do you mean we should have an extra "ok" state which is assigned
> to all good new bugs? 
  no. I like the diagram the way it is.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list